Spanish, Latin and Oscan

[S.V.]

Hello. Decades later, have we found more definite proof for or against this contact? To summarize the claim, similar to Galician in the American colonies, a relative of Latin, 'Oscan', helped settle the more remote areas of Hispania, giving us a slightly different version of Latin. It generated some controversy. I am interested in new evidence, after all the Oscan inscriptions.

Some mentions of the nominative -eis: 2. 'final -s in other italic languages,' 'the success of -s,' 'seven known examples... in Iberia'; p. 53 heisce magistreis, in the magistri campani. It seems 'd' for 't', and 'b' for 'v' is a recurrent theme, across Oscan inscriptions. An instance of 'Oscanized Latin' abzet reminded me of the 'outcomes' surrounding judgar. But this regards the 'color' of the language, like Estopeles, Gurtarno and Arranes already sounding 'Spanish.'

I remember a thread, on how E. Spanish and Greek sound 'similar' at times. Some of those "humildes colonos" (Tovar) would have come from a language that spent centuries next to Greek. Cf. the extension of cansar, an early borrowing from κάμψαι (1.2.1). The absence of volo in Oscan, as in W. Iberian (quero, quiero; veux, voglio). The absence of res, productive in Catalan, like voler, and dative /i/ (cf. older *illei, p. 161). Non dicere, and "the tendency of Oscan to use the subjunctive where Latin would use the imperative"1 (no digas). If that numneí(s) is attested, next to OC nomnes, Pt. nomes, you have 'coincidences' that arrive at an older point. But it is possible M. Pidal's elemento osco was right, in some ways. With the analogy of the American colonies, we get a different 'flavor' of Spanish, after all the Galician, Basque, or Italian ancestors. Un saludo.

 

[Penyafort]

It seems 'd' for 't', and 'b' for 'v' is a recurrent theme, across Oscan inscriptions.

But these are features which have other possible explanations, and lenition is common to most of 'Western Romance', not just West Iberia.

The absence of volo in Oscan, as in W. Iberian (quero, quiero; veux, voglio).

We should see then if it's consistent with all those many words 'missing' in West Iberian, with regard to the rest of Romance languages, or if they are simply a product of a more peripheral often more conservative -but not always- choice of words, and which would explain their presence in Romanian too.

The absence of res, productive in Catalan,

There's ren in Galician.

Non dicere, and "the tendency of Oscan to use the subjunctive where Latin would use the imperative"1 (no digas).

The thing here is, this does not only take place in Spanish. What is the area we should attribute to Oscan influence, if any? Otherwise it simply looks as if we're cherrypicking features from here and there.

I don't discard any possibility. Latin as spoken in different areas of the Empire certainly had its share of particular features which might have been both modified by local pre-Roman languages as well as by the words used/chosen by the speakers who settled. Let's not forget, as well, that the bulge of the population were Romanized Iberians and Celts, rather than settlers from Italy.

 

[S.V.]

other possible explanations

Hola, Penya. Gracias. Yes, it seems that is the issue. They want enough coincidences, until the number itself is less likely to be one. Pidal had a lot less to work with, but the essence of his claim is still possible. For an area, the mines1 in northern Spain may have been a 'magnet' (cf. Augustus’ desire to exert greater control over the mining regions of Asturia-Callaecia... Augustan developments surpassed Caesar’s: p. 114). For the question of why W. Iberian resembles Old Latin more, at times, next to that first map of Oscan (we know it survived in Pompeii, 79 AD), the Latin those Italic states learned would also have been closer to Old Latin. The more 'urban' nature of Cat. and Occitan's parent is consistent with them being closer to Italian. Volo is alive in older authors.2 That querer is not conservative.

With the American colonies analogy, it seems akin to Zipf's law for vocabulary, we would have a rank of 'patterns,' which allows for comía es papas3 or soy... hace 5 años4 to enter Spanish (cf. genetic data), while the 'surrounding' core stays largely unchanged. The same for Argentinian Spanish, with an Italian 'layer' (cf. the absence of amara in specific patterns). Fewer words from Galician remain. The same happens to Lunfardo terms, in Argentina, after the contact shock is absorbed. But the lost patterns may not be regained, and the 'supplemented' high-freq. elements may not go 'back.' The same for a Latin that 'levels' most differences, while allowing some patterns, words, and color 'hues' to become its own.

But the thread needs more cherries. I see ligis scriftas for legibus scriptae. Cf. older -as (Adams) for -ae. This may have influenced escritas, scritte, so languages with rich verbal morphology did not see a 'fuller' collapse of the case system, but a different merge, through different pressures. Tierno, terno are taken as internal changes, while there is a mention of Sabine tereno (p. 223). Names next to 'non-Roman'11 Tettienus, with a common -ie- (311). The higher freq. of diphthongs coincides with the Conventus Asturum, i.e. fewer ( ) settlers past Las Médulas. 'Tengo fame' is still alive in Napoli (cf. cussu tiempe in Apulia: Canzoniere italiano, 543); vulè may correspond to the more complete Romanization, generations after the Social War.

 

[danielstan]

Sorry, but something is not clear to me in this thread:
- I noticed here the hypothesis that the Roman settlers who colonized the Iberian Peninsula were from Southern Italy (where the Oscan language was spoken)
If this hypothesis was taken into consideration I would like to know what historical data we have to sustain it (I really don't know this topic, so I would appreciate if somebody could provide some explanations).

The way I see it (and I may be wrong) is this:
The Roman conquest of the Iberian Peninsula happened between 206 BC (second Punic War) - 19 BC (Augustus annexed the entire Iberia).
I think that in the beginning of this process the Roman settlers came (by sea) from Central and Southern Italy, travelling to Sardinia and from there to Mediterranean shore of Spain.

The route from Italy to Spain could have changed after the Gallic Wars (58 BC - 50 BC):
a second wave of Roman settlers came by land from Northern Italy through Southern France (Gallia) to Northern Spain (Iberia).
If that was true the second wave of Roman settlers (with no Oscan background) have brought another variant of Vulgar Latin than the first wave.

 

[S.V.]

Hello. Yes, compare it with a map of where Portuguese, Spanish, and their sisters survived.

(Quora)

(Wiki; 117 AD)

We can read in that same p. 114, "Prior to the Civil Wars official Roman and Italic settlement in Iberia remained limited and was pursued unsystematically." Those southern colonias, and the references to Ispan oil are consistent with the "two and a half million" olive trees in Seville, a millenium later.1 Notice they extend the same possessions of Carthage in the south, after the 190 BC - AD 150 arid period (cf. "In 134 BC... the extreme heat" next to wars up north; Trajan and Hadrian born in Italica, close to Sevilla "la Vieja", founded by Italic settlers). For language, without Augustus, Spanish would likely not be that close2 to Italian.

Cf. Augustine of Hippo, born in Numidia 354, having to learn 'Latin'3 and the 'drift' of the Vulgate. The more remote areas of Iberia did not speak like Caesar, in the 4th c. And this is not just a matter of time. Notice for 'remote,' that Apulian tiempe is also past the heartlands. But that map is two centuries after the Social War. The Sabellic languages are likely to be understood in this context. It is what it was. And two generations before or after the war, more of their local language still survived, as in Pompeii.

'Oscan' is not claimed as everything that makes Pt. and Sp. different. Nor that all of the colonos spoke Oscan-influenced Latin. This is also akin to the American colonies, helpful to understand degrees of language change. All the Basque (Basque-influenced Spanish) ancestors of Chile may be related to Ch. Spanish being the "hardest" to some ears, but this does not entail a creole split from Spanish, with half its vocabulary changed.

For "the splendor of Emerita" in the next page, cf. "a centre of Romanitas in what had been, prior to 25 BCE, a thinly populated region of Hispania Ulterior" (p. 37), notice we talk of that curve of dots, north of the oil. People can listen to Os Lusíadas, in the context of that synoecism in p. 32 ("a mixed population... confirmation... by the mixed nomenclature"). Cf. the Lusitanian genetic distance (as we lack in language), the earlier control of modern Galicia and Portugal, and the Suebi. If terno, quero or shared are related to Italica & kin, you talk of 'one reason' for Spanish, just as the color of Astures next to Lusitanian, all the Christians who fled north (more diphthongs belong to Asturica Augusta), as well as the green in the first map, absorbed after the Reconquista.

Un saludo. Ojalá que estén bien.

 

[Penyafort]

(Wiki; 117 AD)

We can read in that same p. 114, "Prior to the Civil Wars official Roman and Italic settlement in Iberia remained limited and was pursued unsystematically." Those southern colonias, and the references to Ispan oil are consistent with the "two and a half million" olive trees in Seville, a millenium later.1 Notice they extend the same possessions of Carthage in the south, after the 190 BC - AD 150 arid period (cf. "In 134 BC... the extreme heat" next to wars up north; Trajan and Hadrian born in Italica, close to Sevilla "la Vieja", founded by Italic settlers). For language, without Augustus, Spanish would likely not be that close2 to Italian.

But how does that affect Spanish (i.e., Castilian) at all?

What we see in -and infer from- the map is that the most populated and probably most Romanized colony was the Baetica province. If anything, we'd be able to contrast this today if there had been no Muslim invasion, and therefore no expansion southwards of Castilians. In that case, the Latin spoken in the Baetica would have developed into a Romance language of its own and we'd be able to analyze the features. The Western Andalusian the area speaks today is mainly the result of a medieval northern import.

 

[S.V.]

Hola, Penya. Notice Daniel's is also a logistics issue. The core of Romanitas in Spain is that concentration of colonias. An issue for the 'unprecedented' and 'surpassed' expansions regards where you get the people from. This is, if that concentration of dots were around Barcelona, they would likely belong to the same branch. But we are looking at a map after Caesar and Augustus.

One of the books quoted Gellius (born c. 125 AD). Hispano ore (may have to remove any extension after .com, in some countries), before barbarum et agrestem, qui ortus terra Hispania foret, in reference to some Greeks insulting that Iulianus, in Latin. It may be unrelated, or they used him for the larger attack on Latin itself. His recorded manat subito / subido mihi sudor seems to give some problems. Gellius also records other curiosities like explicuit for explicauit, in his time.

Cf. 'The same happened to emperor Hadrian, when as quaestor, he addressed the senate using his peculiar Hispanic speech: the Hispano ore, which provoked the laughter and mockery of the senators' (Doménech). And the lack of emperors after. They would be from that same concentration of dots. He likely did not have a 'completely broken' Latin. If Augustus also had colonos agrestes, this entails a rich verbal morphology, with more of a θedro e choupo feel. We look at the initial, smaller groups who 'teach' it (without volo).

The coast where Catalan is born was less of a 'logistical' challenge. Same for Old Occitan being closer to Italian, than the vast north.

 

[Hulalessar]

Sorry, but something is not clear to me in this thread:
- I noticed here the hypothesis that the Roman settlers who colonized the Iberian Peninsula were from Southern Italy (where the Oscan language was spoken)
If this hypothesis was taken into consideration I would like to know what historical data we have to sustain it (I really don't know this topic, so I would appreciate if somebody could provide some explanations).

I was wondering the same and also whether we actually know enough about Oscan to speak confidently about its influence on any present day Romance language.

 

[Olaszinhok]

For language, without Augustus, Spanish would likely not be that close2 to Italian.

In my view, contrary to popular belief, Italian and Spanish (particularly the European variety) are not that similar. Consider pluralisation, past participle and preterite morphology, use of prepositions, auxiliary verbs, ci/vi/ne particles, the use of ser/estar and above all, syntax! Even pronunciation is pretty different: gemination is the main feature in Italian, in addition to the distinction between open and closed O's and E's, ts, dz, sh and v sounds. On the other hand, Spanish has x, θ, β and a couple of other allophones. Not to mention the S sound, which is apical in Spanish, unlike Italian. Also the t̠ʃ sound is pronounced differently, more retracted/backed in Spanish, Italian t̠ʃ is more similar to the English one. Last but not least, the intonation/prosody between European Spanish and Italian is rather different, also due to the many double consonants and elongated vowels present in Italian. Words like pena (pe:na) and penna (pen.na) or beve (be:ve) and bevve (bev.ve) are pretty different in pronunciation. A similar phenomenon also occurs in Swedish and Norwegian, although vowel length is phonemic in these languages, unlike Italian.

 

[S.V.]

Hola, Olaszin. Of course, for a long thread of its own. We can find a video for asymmetric intelligibility, for a relevant example. This agrees with the 1.04 for Spanish-Italian, in that reference, Table 2, and a Spanish speaker having issues, with fast, colloquial Italian. But one question is why it is 1.04, two millennia later. The above would point to the level of Romanization (before borrowings). Then we ask why the emperor from Italica was mocked in the senate.

You can see that pɛθa in p. 7, for Logudorese-Nuorese, "the most conservative". The old history of θ in Italy is not clear to me, so I did not mention it (cf. Gorgia... [ɸ θ ɣ]; ↔? "an ancient lenition stage common to Late Latinity"37). For language, compare it with all of Greece going one way, and Romayka holding on to the past. The 'Roman' world was smaller when they took that south, home of criollos (p. 15). Everything may be internal, or some things may reflect the past. Epigraphical evidence, as in Pidal, may be more useful than cherries.

whether we actually know enough about Oscan

Hola, Hula. I was also sincere in my request for "proof," but I realize the context itself needs a history teacher. I am not one.

See seganatted next to signauit. From another thread for estrella, which may be internal. A constant theme is the more conservative nature of Oscan. Next to the hard evidence of all the Pompeii inscriptions, you had different levels of Latin absorbing the deded south (alttreí, dúnúm, adiuhbans, vaamunium, Sadri, Vikturrai). This is, everyone spoke like Rome, everyone came from Rome are clearly unsustainable, but you would talk of their Sabellic-influenced Latin. Then the degree is the question for Italica & kin, under their own synoikism. Volo was one of the important differences. Hadrian would have had a latín agreste, cf. "Priscam, Latinam, Romanam, Mixtam."

 

[Penyafort]

The core of Romanitas in Spain is that concentration of colonias.

Well, Romanitas in Spain took long enough to suffer from several waves, in my opinion, as well as from internal movement. This is obvious because of words 'born' after the settlements, which would also become used in the Tarraconensis but not in Hispania Ulterior ('Remote Iberia'). Concentration of colonies are probably a sign of what was a tendency in variation during the Classical period, and the examples you mention of Gellius's master, Antonius Iulianus, and specially emperor Hadrian, show that the accent from Baetica, whether mainly due to settlers, to pre-Roman locals (Turdetanians), or to both, must have been the one perceived as 'typically Hispanic' indeed in the Roman Empire. (But just in the same way people outside Spain today think that the 'Spanish dance' is flamenco -ironically a dance from that same Betican area- when in fact the quintessential Spanish dance is the jota, so is it clear that there must also have been other local varieties of Latin throughout Hispania, Betican probably just being the most spoken or famous one)

The coast where Catalan is born was less of a 'logistical' challenge. Same for Old Occitan being closer to Italian, than the vast north.

Sure. Although we'll never know what Catalan might have looked like, or if it'd had been born at all, was it not because of Frankish incursion in the Peninsular north-east. Perhaps a "Tarraconian language", a sort of more Aragonesoid Western Catalan, who knows.

In my view, contrary to popular belief, Italian and Spanish (particularly the European variety) are not that similar. Consider pluralisation, past participle and preterite morphology, use of prepositions, auxiliary verbs, ci/vi/ne particles, the use of ser/estar and above all, syntax! Even pronunciation is pretty different: gemination is the main feature in Italian, in addition to the distinction between open and closed O's and E's, ts, dz, sh and v sounds. On the other hand, Spanish has x, θ, β and a couple of other allophones. Not to mention the S sound, which is apical in Spanish, unlike Italian. Also the t̠ʃ sound is pronounced differently, more retracted/backed in Spanish, Italian t̠ʃ is more similar to the English one. Last but not least, the intonation/prosody between European Spanish and Italian is rather different, also due to the many double consonants and elongated vowels present in Italian. Words like pena (pe:na) and penna (pen.na) or beve (be:ve) and bevve (bev.ve) are pretty different in pronunciation. A similar phenomenon also occurs in Swedish and Norwegian, although vowel length is phonemic in these languages, unlike Italian.

I agree with all of that. I'd say the real reason is that Spanish and Italian don't drop final vowels, unlike the Catalan/Occitan/French/Lombard central area, and Romanian in the far east. Both Spanish and Italian have a sort of clear-sounding non-reductionist character that you don't see in the languages of the central area or in Portuguese either. That makes first understanding easy despite the many differences mentioned by you that people who actually study them have to face with. (Although Spaniards who also speak Catalan have it quite easier)

 

[Hulalessar]

Both Spanish and Italian have a sort of clear-sounding non-reductionist character that you don't see in the languages of the central area or in Portuguese either. That makes first understanding easy despite the many differences mentioned by you that people who actually study them have to face with.

I think that is the explanation of why on the whole Spanish speakers understand more spoken Italian than they do Portuguese and indeed why the mutual intelligibility between spoken Spanish and Portuguese is asymmetric. Standard Italian as you hear it on RAI news comes over as crisply articulated.

Is there any evidence that any of the non-Italian Romance languages of Italy have a non-Latin Italic language substrate?

The question posed by this thread is another who spoke what where question the answer to which is lost in the mists of time. The Romance languages are probably the group of languages whose history is best known, not least because of the huge corpus of Latin texts. There is though a gap because for a long period people were not speaking anything which we would today recognise as Latin, though they kept on writing it. Though there may be a few clues given by texts written by clerks whose Latin was not up to Cicero's standard, there are not really any intermediate texts. It is of course also the case that even back in Roman times vernacular speech was not being meticulously recorded. The position in Spain is complicated by the fact that no one knows for sure to what extend at different times Romance languages were spoken in Al-Andalus.

 

[S.V.]

Hello. To avoid digressions on the Italian (I have had the pleasure), I change it to Without Augustus, and his soldiers, Spanish would be much farther from Latin.

Concentration of colonies are probably a sign of what was a tendency in variation during the Classical period

Hola, Penya. After the old Baetica Felix ("agriculturally rich," "silver-rich"), notice this later, aggregate map on page 29 (Monfort).

On p. 13 he mentions Neila, "The degree of urbanism has been linked to the presence of Italics," before oversimplistic. That criollos reference is consistent with Italica in the frame of a smaller Roman world, before Caesar and Augustus (Emerita Augusta is the jewel of the map). A reason for W. Iberian and the urbanism clearly strives on the two expansions mentioned. The Latin of Emerita would likely be a similar shade to Baetica, soon after Augustus. This goes back to where you get the people. During the following centuries, those shades in the north that are pulled by Emerita likely had a similar shade as well (cf. mobility... evident through the epigraphy on p. 15).

The Social War culminated in full rights, when Caesar was a teen, before both expansions. If a number came, after Caesar, or after Augustus redrew the map to those mines, most Sabellic-influenced Latin would still be 'levelled' by the urban centers. Just as in southern Italy. Complicated by the conquests. This may be consistent with that Asturica in the corner, so far from the later capital, also retaining more of the 'rural' traits, centuries later. In human terms, generations after their own Romanization, at most we talk of the 'asturianos' and 'gallegos' we take to the criollo zone, in America. And an influence is still possible, in this case.

For language, this connects them to that capital, and explains the examples in Doménech, along the rich morphology of both. An old Romanitas core gets transplanted, instead of conquering Iberia at the same time as Gallia. This is, two centuries of Baetica color Emerita, the capital. This transplant solves the issue of Romanization requiring thousands of settlers (those soldiers under Augustus, the emeriti, were one of the three), while they are quiero-chopo langs. The influence of the old Tarraco could have been similar. 'Two' flows of Latin would solve some issues. If that genetic map of 'Celtiberian' is right, their vowels may have been more compatible. I noticed those mountains, for the lack of ren as 'nada' in PT (a flow into Bracara →Suebi). Cf. "14,000 pounds of gold... anually... sufficient to pay... for seventeen legions" (Erskine; Lugo). And the silver of Tartessos, for Baetica. Italica, by soldiers under Scipio.

Although we'll never know...was it not because of Frankish incursion

Inruptae sunt Hispaniae... nihil quidem novum... But the Basques defeated Charlemagne. And I thank you all, for your time.

 

[Olaszinhok]

I agree with all of that. I'd say the real reason is that Spanish and Italian don't drop final vowels, unlike the Catalan/Occitan/French/Lombard central area, and Romanian in the far east. Both Spanish and Italian have a sort of clear-sounding non-reductionist character that you don't see in the languages of the central area or in Portuguese either. That makes first understanding easy despite the many differences mentioned by you that people who actually study them have to face with. (Although Spaniards who also speak Catalan have it quite easier)

I agree with you, but I would add that certain varieties of Catalan (Valencian, western Catalan) and Galician are also rather clear. Even the variety spoken in Barcelona is clearer than the Balearic version. The unstressed a in Standard Catalan tends to be pronounced as an ɐ rather than a schwa. It seems to me that languages with plenty of schwa sounds are generally less clear, see English, Danish, Russian, Albanian and so on. Italian clarity (there may be differences amongst the various varieties of Italian, though) is also due to the phenomenon I tried to explain in my previous post: the frequent alternation between double and single consonants and vowels, which characterize Italian prosody.

 

[danielstan]

It seems to me that languages with plenty of schwa sounds are generally less clear, see English, Danish, Russian, Albanian and so on.

Yes, because your every day language (Italian) does not have a lot of schwa.
I noticed Italians living in Romania and not making a distinction between [a] and [schwa] when speaking Romanian. Romanian is a language with a lot of schwa and for its core vocabulary the following phonetic rule is applicable:
unstressed [a] became schwa (spelled "ă").
As example Romanian mamă is not articulated ("mother") in opposition with mama which is articulated ("the mother") and the Italians here do not always make this important distinction.

But for me, as native Romanian speaker, there is no problem to understand and speak Bulgarian language (which has the same phonetic rule on unstressed [a]), nor Russian (which has [a], schwa and [ɨ] - spelled ы).
Note: during communism most people living in Southern Romania were watching Bulgarian television and some of them (including myself) do understand basic sentences in Bulgarian.

 

[S.V.]

It seems a bishop (†651) reminded Cantabrians of a "destruction," "for their sins."

(IL)

Duendes, ojáncanus, and a Ianuaria censored by St. Isidore survived in a green zone protected by the Gulf Stream.

After that colony (NLM: Supplementary Materials, p. 85),

some of the noise from Herrero to Quevedo (16.7 E, 21.4 J: Nature) may be an after-image, for two millennia of amo, amas, amábamos... With pro-drop also preserved by those mountains.

There is a Latin quote for cuium pecus? as 'rural' (sic rure locuntur1 2). OCast. dime cúya fija eres (General Estoria, 'whose daughter'). An ext. comparison with OSardinian (cuios72 ←ᴄᴜɪᴏs; alige297 ←ᴀʟɪǫᴜᴇᴍ; mecu80 ←ᴍᴇᴄᴜᴍ; ki stavat156 in Genua; si teniant116 liberos; nunc quaeris4.2 eum interficere; a Bera et a Maria... ego levailu300 a Migali; ɴᴏɴ+sʙᴊᴠ1) seems to spread towards Portuguese (faço66 Servindo132 partindo116 ponio42). Crowned by esserent 205 (serem). That Naples and Bari mention, also in Byzantine maps; a reanalysis preserved long enough. Cf. teneva733 frabeccata; comu dormisti?672; ferrámene,1087 costúmene, and sos nominis.

'Long enough' can also explain /θ s̺/, in a 'well-attested decay chain' (Simkin). With confiçion soon after gelo becomes selo. Next to the couple centuries of the gold mines, the permanent legion, and 'Romanization' ("Asturian and Cantabrian... forty units of Auxiliaries" p. 272; "the defense of the road to Bordeaux" p. 281; "the colonization of the countryside" p. 287, cf. the Roman centuries in Montcortès data, fig. 5, below cerealia), it's likely you do not talk of a 'Cantabrian,' or an 'Asturian' language, to explain some changes. Similar to the south. After Rohlf's link to Gascon, also in genetic data, it may also explain the f- issue. A 'rustic' f- surviving long enough, 'etymologically justified... ultimately going back to */bh dh gṷh/' (p. 80), left unsupervised next to the Basques, on both sides. The domna Uelaskita (p. 45) element, and all the Basque onomastics also in genetic data2 towards Burgos.

The ños of Asturian seemed like a cousin of nos lu aveat datu a nnois104 (cf. /pupillu... ki teneat a nnumen... e nnon bennerun/140; parthinde a nnatias35). This would be the 'second' line, which could still give le lo in 13th C. Zamora (cf. deililu154). Someday they may have the lines before. OCast. levar was surrounded by llevar and copula ye and uello 'eye.' It seems the patterns related to Sp. yerto, yermo, huerto, hueso, etc. were more productive, while anyone could see the obvious relation to Old Aragonese (Vidal Mayor), the fourth line which survived in that Frank orbit. OCast. in the 'natural' cross of both paths,3 t and St. Isidore's cama is still our bed.